We have heard from Mr. Simoncini, who thinks that people who want to live in Hoboken all make over $100,000. Apparently he makes too much to live here, so he has decided on becoming a Mile Square Taxpayer. We have heard from Renters, who know how ridiculous these people are. We have heard from Hoboken '80's who remember how miserable it is to be forced out of your home. Of course there is MSTA. Owners should think strongly about this bill, also. The more money you make, the more responsibility you have. That chunk of change may not look so good, soon.

In other words, fixing up, means fixing up and service. The walls need stripping and the place needs painting and while you are at it, might as well just wallboard it too. This needs to be done before the holiday and the flooring is not acceptable. You need to upgrade. The water is awful and this new tenant is not lugging water home. You need to put in a pur water thing and make sure, monthly, that it is in service. The electrical outlets are horrible. The place needs to be upgraded and plugs need to be everywhere for the tech way of life. The place does have wifi? Oh and that is just the beginning. If that your phone ringing at 12 a.m....can you come now? The place needs to be sound proofed. Who would have thought it would be so noisy? The plumbing, new lights in the bathroom and we do need to discuss the fixtures and aren't you going to replace the stove and refrigerator, etc. etc. Well, you know, if you can't come up tuit' I am sure someone will take this property off your hands, for a reasonable amount. They could implode it and put up one of those aluminum thingies...or maybe the maids can stay there (hahaha), or just maybe they have a large, expensive place planned that needs your land.!!!! Think

Ron, did you ever ask yourself why you and Gormally are the only ones attempting to argue with tenants?

Why you're such lonely voices pissing in the wind in all these comment spaces?

Here's why: It's because you're the only ones GETTING PAID TO DO SOMETHING NO ONE BELIEVES IN, except for your well-heeled landlord clients -- the ones paying you to put a wholesome, family-style spin on legalized theft and gouging.

The idea, for example, that most of the landlords in this town don't already have "the resources to fix the place up" is so lacking in credibility that, along with all your other tape-loop delusions, it's essentially rendered you a laughing-stock.

You're the town dunce -- except you don't live here.

Poor Mr. Gormally is feeling so wounded from the beating the two of you took at the debate that he's now wrongly assuming he knows the identity of other commenters and demanding that they "out" themselves. It would never occur to him to simply listen to what they say instead of being obsessed with their identity.

Just as a point of pure observation, I'd say at this stage that you two, with your false market-rent mantra, are coming awfully close to getting tarred & feathered in your nice suits in front of city hall & put on the train back to Roseland, or Newark, or Siberia.

You're both way too self-important to get it that no one believes you, no one listens to you and no one likes you.

It's not too late to learn from the adage that "one should never be where one does not belong."

here is the link to the debate, which started with the tenant representatives being late and then not understanding the format and then not being able to identify and answer question from their own constituency. i am not sure what beating we took, but let everyone decide for themselves.

this is another very courageous post from an anonymous tenant. anyone wonder why they never put their name on anything and never confront myself or mr. gormally in person? it's shame. they know that distributing scare-mongering letters to seniors and public housing residents is not responsive to the campaign,but they will do anything to win. they misrepresented themselves in the crazy period before z-88 cured the legal rent calculation fiasco and shut off the windfall settlements; they misrepresented themselves in trying to reverse z-88; and they will misrepresent themselves, anonymously, every chance they get. i would rather be paid for my work than sink to exploiting truly vulnerable people to get a vote. tenants have more protection and power than ever as a result of my work, because there is far greater scrutiny on landlords. and still no harassment occurs.

by the way, i get paid the same no matter how many times i point out the fallacies of the tenant position.

ronsimoncini

|

October 28, 2012

as readers of this space know, i am eager to refute insane tenant advocates. but this letter is completely incomprehensible and so it is hard to figure out how to do it. i guess i will leave it at this: if you want your place fixed up, you want a YES vote. existing tenants may have modest incomes, but they are fully protected by the rent leveling ordinance as they were the day they moved in. their benefit is their property owner will now have the resources to fix the place up. vote YES if you are a rent controlled tenant. you have nothing to lose and everything to gain. vote YES if you are a condo owner. you have been exploited by a rent control ordinance that puts property taxes on you while restricting the rent you could charge to 1983 levels if you were to rent it. vote YES if your family property is covered by rent control to STOP being the only family property regulated by rent control in New Jersey. just because the law has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's right -- in fact, it only goes to show how urgently it needs to be fixed. A YES vote fixes it and its fair.

The lying squad is totally out in full force again. Tenants BEWARE, landlords are fully capable of keeping their units in a good state of repair under the existing law. They can file for a capital improvement surcharge and, as long as they show receipts they are entitled to recoup 100% of their expenditure (unless the repair was in connection with a code violation in which case they would only be entitled to 60%) A yes vote, however, could put you at risk of eviction should the landlord believe s/he can get much more money from the next tenant. If you are a rent controlled tenant, the one thing you stand to lose is the roof over your head. That's a pretty big loss. Protect yourself; VOTE NO. For condo owners that want to rent their units - it is NOT POSSIBLE that you could be required to charge a 1983 rent, it's 2012! This is another lie that Simoncini keeps repeating. More than all of it, if you are a rent controlled tenant, a condo owner or a multifamily property owner - protect your town from outside mega-developer lobbyists and real estate interests. VOTE NO on Hoboken Public Question #2.